Announcement

**indian airlines** · 2003-10-13, 12:39

1. Seems fine to me. The only possible reson for rejection I see is that you included just a little too much of the plane if u were intending it to be a close up shot.

2. I really don't know why that was rejected.

3. You cut the wing off.

4. Once again, you included too much of the plane to qualify it as a close up shot, and so it got treated as a normal shot and got rejected because parts of the plane are cut off.

5. I don't understand this rejection. The pic seems fine.

6. Same plane different angle. Makes no sense.

**Geoffrey** · 2003-10-13, 13:03

[qoute]6..... Makes no sense[/qoute]
Do you mean makes no sense of being accepted or what? (5 is actually the one gets accepted and 6 is being said as a similar angle)

And how much more do I have to crop for those rejected close-ups?
Thanks for your help anyway. I appreciate it!

**indian airlines** · 2003-10-13, 13:46

For number 6, what I mean is that it makes no sense to upload two photographs of the same aircraft, be they from different angles or not.

About howmuch u should crop, wait for a screener to answer that. I can't tell.

**SWA733Captain** · 2003-10-13, 16:33

1. Is not too bad of a photo, but it would have to depend on the screener, personally i would have rejected it just due to the fact that you left a little too much space between the nose and the left edge of the photo.

2. Once again, you just left way too much space between the nose and the left edge of the photo.

3. You did cut the wing off as Tanuj stated, it's also pretty low on quality, a lot of noise is noticable on the fuseladge plus it's a little soft, and sharpening it won't exactly help your grain problem.

4. The aircraft is "bottom centered", just crop off a little of the sky at the top and it should be fine, just be sure not to crop it below 600 pixels high!

5. I feel #5 should have been rejected, it is well oversharpened, it is espically noticable around the engine cowlings, landing gear, etc.

6. Again, the aircraft in a bit bottom centered. Also, the aircraft is very distracting in the grey background, you have to look really close just to see where the plane ends and sky begins. I suggest shooting on a day with clear skies for the best results.

If you have any further questions, please ask away!

**egll** · 2003-10-13, 22:19

A screener writes.........

1) Not quite close enough for a close up, but almost there.

2) Much the same as number 1, are you trying to show us a close up? If so you need to crop tighter.

3) You have clipped the wing off this one, cutting the wings off is fine provided you are cropping fairly close-check my pics in the database, that is very much my style, tight crop with the wings cut off.

4) The aircraft is not centred in the frame, bad cropping can happen when taking the picture and also at the point of editing.

5) Probably isn't the same aircraft, but the database does not differentiate between one unknown registration and another so it goes down as being similar to a previous picture.

When it comes to close ups it is hard to say what is good and what is bad-it depends what you are trying to show us, but nose to engines would be a good start. The angle you have got would suggest the following picture as something to aim towards.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=127830

Matt

**LX-A343** · 2003-10-14, 09:59

Re: Why are these bad motive?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=86329
Too much aircraft for a close up, too much space on the left of the fuselage, flat colors (lack of contrast)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=86330
Definitely too much space on the left of the fuselage, flat colors (lack of contrast)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=86365
Chopped off wing makes it really a bad cropped aircraft. Then: grainy, a bit too dark.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=86546
Again, too much aircraft for a close up, flat colors (lack of contrast)

Your reference:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=165075
zoomed in a bit more. Thats more of a close up to me.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=86367
Looks a bit similar, but then again, the washed out sky makes it harder to accept.

Hope it helped
Gerardo

**Geoffrey** · 2003-10-14, 12:25

Thanks to all! All your comments helped!

I need a little more help with the contrast though. What is the matter and how should I deal with that when taking photos and editing?

And about the close-up, what about these?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=135286
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=135285

Or does that only apply to the 747? Or proportion problem?
Thanks. I need to improve my skills a lot!

**atco** · 2003-10-14, 17:24

The 777 is a nice angle but again there's too much dead space.

There are 2 ways I would have tackled this shot:

1. Very close up angle:
Left edge of the photo close to the tip of the nose, right edge just at the end of the main inboard flap.

2. Similar to what you have shot, the right edge where it is but the left edge up close to the tip of the nose. Losing that dead space on the left and the wing on that side would have given the shot far more impact.

As it is again it's neither a close up nor a profile shot

**Geoffrey** · 2003-10-20, 14:56

Thanks Garry.
Got some others rejected again, but much less this time! Thanks!

How should I deal with these overexposed/washed out sky?
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91191
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91171 (How can I crop better as well?)

This is also my first time to see "Bad colour"
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91150

Thanks in advance for any help!

**JeffinDEN** · 2003-10-21, 01:36

the sky in the last one (bad color) has a pinkish tint to it on my monitor.
As for avoiding blowing out the sky? Try a different exposure mode, and bracket.

**Geoffrey** · 2003-10-23, 11:58

Thanks Jeff.
Any chance of eliminating the problem with editing? And any other advice as well?

Announcement

Why are these bad motive?

Why are these bad motive?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment